Onasanya v London Borough of Newham: Admn 14 Jul 2006

The defendant had tried to sell his car by placing a notice in a rear window saying it was for sale, and leaving it on the street.
Held: The authority said that there was more than one purpose in the vehicle being left on the street, and that the statutory defence was not available. That approach was entirely wrong: ‘What the court has to be satisfied about in section 38(2) is that the article ‘was brought into that street for some purpose other than street trading’. The question that must be asked, therefore, is: why was it in ‘that street’ and nowhere else at the material time? ‘ and ‘the control mechanism is limited by the terms of the statute and where, as here, a person puts forward a credible explanation against which there is no contradictory evidence it seems to me that prosecution is an excessive response.’


Maurice Kay LJ, Mitting J


[2006] EWCA Civ 1775 (Admin), [2006] 4 All ER 459




London Local Authorities Act 1990 38(1)(a)


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Duncan CACD 1981
Where a defendant has not given evidence the whole of a ‘mixed’ statement, one which includes matter which is incriminating and also matter which is exculpatory, should be admitted in evidence, if it is to be admitted at all. Nevertheless, the court . .
CitedRegina v Aziz; Regina v Tosun; Regina v Yorganci HL 16-Jun-1995
The defendant (one of three) relied upon his part exculpatory statement made in interview and did not give evidence. The judge said that his good character was relevant as to his own propensity, and the character of the others was relevant to their . .
CitedLondon Borough of Haringey v Michniewicz Admn 14-Jun-2004
The defendant was accused of unlicensed street trading. He had placed a car on the street with a sign to say that it was for sale.
Held: The offering of just one vehicle was sufficient to constitute the offence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.243151